lists  /  announce  owl-users  owl-dev  john-users  john-dev  passwdqc-users  yescrypt  popa3d-users  /  oss-security  kernel-hardening  musl  sabotage  tlsify  passwords  /  crypt-dev  xvendor  /  Bugtraq  Full-Disclosure  linux-kernel  linux-netdev  linux-ext4  linux-hardening  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Sat, 9 Apr 2022 02:00:18 +0200
From:   Jakob Koschel <>
To:     Vladimir Oltean <>
Cc:     "David S. Miller" <>,
        Jakub Kicinski <>,
        Paolo Abeni <>, Andrew Lunn <>,
        Vivien Didelot <>,
        Florian Fainelli <>,
        Lars Povlsen <>,
        Steen Hegelund <>,, Ariel Elior <>,
        Manish Chopra <>,
        Edward Cree <>,
        Martin Habets <>,
        Michael Ellerman <>,
        Benjamin Herrenschmidt <>,
        Paul Mackerras <>,
        Jiri Pirko <>,
        Casper Andersson <>,
        Bjarni Jonasson <>,
        Colin Ian King <>,
        Michael Walle <>,
        Christophe JAILLET <>,
        Arnd Bergmann <>,
        Eric Dumazet <>,
        Di Zhu <>, Xu Wang <>,
        Netdev <>,
        LKML <>,
        Linux ARM <>,
        linuxppc-dev <>,
        Mike Rapoport <>,
        Brian Johannesmeyer <>,
        Cristiano Giuffrida <>,
        "Bos, H.J." <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 03/15] net: dsa: mv88e6xxx: Replace usage of
 found with dedicated iterator

> On 9. Apr 2022, at 01:50, Vladimir Oltean <> wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 09, 2022 at 01:44:00AM +0200, Jakob Koschel wrote:
>>> Let's try to not make convoluted code worse. Do the following 2 patches
>>> achieve what you are looking for? Originally I had a single patch (what
>>> is now 2/2) but I figured it would be cleaner to break out the unrelated
>>> change into what is now 1/2.
>> I do agree with not making convoluted code worse, but I was reluctant with
>> e.g. introducing new functions for this because others essentially
>> have the opposite opinion on this.
>> I however like solving it that way, it makes it a lot cleaner.
> Yeah, I think 'just adapt to the context and style and intentions of the
> code you're changing and don't try to push a robotic one-size-fits-all
> solution' is sensible enough for an initial guiding principle.
>>> If you want I can submit these changes separately.
>> Sure if you want to submit them separately, go ahead. Otherwise I can
>> integrate it into a v2, whatever you prefer essentially.
> If you're moving quickly feel free to pick them up. I have lots of other
> things on my backlog so it won't be until late next week until I even
> consider submitting these.

I'm planning to send a v2 earlier than that, so I'll just integrate it there.


Powered by blists - more mailing lists